Peter wrote:Most likely you're "I don't know" results in you making decisions based solely on the here and now, which is the equivalent of holding the view of no birth after death.

Does that mean, if I don't know whether there is rebirth in the traditional sense, then that's the equivalent of hodling the view that no one else will be born after my body dies?

That's up to you. I don't know what happens after death because I do not have that power to know, the power that the Buddha and others claim to have. However I have adopted the view of what happens after death in line with what the Buddha taught because I have developed confidence in the Buddha and his teachings.

My point, which seems to have been missed by some, is that trying to answer the OP's question with "I don't know" isn't telling the full story. There will be times when you will have to make decisions which will be influenced by what view you hold about what happens when we die. One who grasps firmly to "I don't know" will often make such decisions solely on what they know and see in this life. Such an approach often leads to the same conclusions as outright denying rebirth.

pink_trike wrote:

Peter wrote:

pink_trike wrote:In more than one place in the Suttas words to the effect of "don't have faith in me...try it, analyze it, study it" are attributed to the Buddha as instructions for lay followers

Care to provide more than one reference?

Source: the wikipedia god.

Neither of the two quotes you provided say "don't have faith in me". In fact, they say the exact opposite.

In the Jivaka Sutta...The Buddha, when asked how one practices being a lay follower "both for his own benefit & the benefit of others," the Buddha states that one is consummate oneself in and encourages others in the consummation of: conviction (saddhā); virtue (sīla); generosity (cāga); visiting monks; and, hearing, remembering, analyzing, understanding and practicing the Dhamma.

Sutta 44(iv, 220), Buddha questions Sariputta to which Sariputta answers, "Herein, O Lord, I do not follow the Exalted One out of faith. Those by whom this is unknown, unseen, uncognized, unrealized and unexperienced by wisdom, they will herein follow others out of faith."

in light of scholarly confirmation that there have been many additions and revisions to the suttas at various times/places, and the number of theravadan divisions that died out or were politically squeezed out of existence...I'll stick to practice.

So it is your contention that all the numerous and varied references to rebirth scattered throughout the Canon were added in by later monks? Please provide some evidence for this contention.

In the Jivaka Sutta...The Buddha, when asked how one practices being a lay follower "both for his own benefit & the benefit of others," the Buddha states that one is consummate oneself in and encourages others in the consummation of: conviction (saddhā); virtue (sīla); generosity (cāga); visiting monks; and, hearing, remembering, analyzing, understanding and practicing the Dhamma.[13]

Sutta 44(iv, 220), Buddha questions Sariputta to which Sariputta answers, "Herein, O Lord, I do not follow the Exalted One out of faith. Those by whom this is unknown, unseen, uncognized, unrealized and unexperienced by wisdom, they will herein follow others out of faith."

Those who religiously accept the Buddha as the final Supreme authority, and who regard a literal reading of the words attributed to him are doing so on faith, and faith alone. I never met the man so I don't know. I've studied the meta processes of oral tradition and early writing, and remain convinced that those who passed along the oral teachings, and at some still unknown date later began to write them down, followed ancient standards for the transmission of knowledge that are only now becoming clear to us. Religious Buddhists don't have much interest in the "style guides" that were used widely at that time, preferring a more literal reading. Until these style guides are better understood in the context of the written preservation of Buddhist oral tradition (some of which predate Buddhism itself), I'm sticking with "I don't know", practice, and the guidance of teachers regarding my practice. Also, in light of scholarly confirmation that there have been many additions and revisions to the suttas at various times/places, and the number of theravadan divisions that died out or were politically squeezed out of existence...I'll stick to practice.

We live in the age of "I don't know"...a time when all concrete assumptions are crumbling in all fields of human inquiry and belief - a prediction that can be traced back to words attributed to the Buddha. Uncertainty is the zeitgeist of the times - so that's what we work with.

I think that you might not be allowing for the possibility of more than one kind of "faith" among those who revere the Buddha, even a type of sophisticated "faith" that may have some rational grounds for it.

I think that most Theravadins do not have this sort of faith: A man knocks on Mr. A's door, offers him some pamphlets and says, "My religious text says this. My religious text says that. Just believe." Mr. A says, "OK. I believe." That is blind faith.

Instead they might have this sort of faith: They practice under the guidance of a teacher who consistently demonstrates that he is an expert in meditation and awakening and that he has profound insights into the nature of reality, the person, etc. We tend to afford experts whose experiments have been successfully replicated by other experts a measure of trust. We need not pretend to have absolute certainty to do this. Most knowledge is uncertain and a matter of probability anyway.

There are other possibilities as well...

As for doubts about the authenticity of the teachings of the Pali Canon, there are rational grounds for recognizing that the principal teachings of the Nikayas (4 Noble Truths, Eightfold Path, 3 Marks of Existence, etc.) probably go back to the Buddha. For example: (1) These teachings are found in what remains of the scriptural collections of the other early Indian schools, suggesting that the teachings are presectarian. (We can compare the Nikaya discourses with corresponding texts of the Sarvastivadins, Dharmaguptakas, Kasyapiyas, and Mahasanghikas. Several scholars have done so and gained increased confidence in the Pali Canon. Differences between the schools were largely a matter of interpretation.). (2) The teachings are highly coherent, suggesting that they are the product of one mind, rather than a patchwork evolving from the contributions of many.

I don't really disagree with this. But I would note that there is no confirmation yet that the principle teachings don't predate the time of the Buddha. And also, I'll note that the "highly coherent" nature of the teachings may also suggest, rather than being the product of one mind - that they may be the product of a sophisticated ancient preservation style for wrapping knowledge securely to survive it's journey into the future via largely untrained, uneducated human carrier pigeons, with the understanding that those rare few who were trained in the mysteries would read the suttas differently than ordinary people's literal reading (it being presumed that the style guides would still be known by those select few keepers of wisdom).

Vision is MindMind is EmptyEmptiness is Clear LightClear Light is UnionUnion is Great Bliss

The "don't know" taught by the Buddha is this: I don't know if the teachings are true or false. I do not know if they lead where they say they lead. I will put them into practice and see for myself if they are true, if they lead where they say they lead.

The specific teaching in question in this thread is: The way to the ending of suffering is the Noble Eightfold Path. Right View is part of the Noble Eightfold Path. Kamma and rebirth are part of Right View.

And so our "don't know" is: Is adopting the view of kamma and rebirth a part of the path to ending suffering? Is holding the view there is no kamma and rebirth an obstacle to ending suffering?

And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents [asava], siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]; and there is noble right view, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.

"And what is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are priests & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions

So couldnt it be said that one needs such view to begin, but to reach nibbana it needs to be let go of because its inherently tainted with sensual desire, being and ignorance which hold one back from nibbana?

Metta

The dogmatists have claimed to have found the truth, others say that it cannot be apprehended; the Sceptics continue the search. Sextus Empiricus

peter wrote:There will be times when you will have to make decisions which will be influenced by what view you hold about what happens when we die.

Specifically?

peter wrote:So it is your contention that all the numerous and varied references to rebirth scattered throughout the Canon were added in by later monks? Please provide some evidence for this contention.

There is no rational way of knowing, or of knowing precisely what is meant by "reborn". The white elephant in the room is whether everything in the Canon was spoken by the Buddha or not, and whether a literal reading is a correct reading. 100, 300, 500, 800 years after the Buddha died (also unknown) there emerges seemingly dynamic content in written form, which at a much later date suddenly becomes static content. Some take it on faith that it is all the word of Jesu...er, the Buddha. "Buddha said it, its in the Canon, I believe it"...to paraphrase a popular xtian phrase. Some don't buy such an easy solution. I read the suttas, and see if practice confirms them. If practice confirms, then I have faith in what is confirmed.

Vision is MindMind is EmptyEmptiness is Clear LightClear Light is UnionUnion is Great Bliss

The use of the phrase "next world" in the context of rebirth triggers scholarly alarm bells. In nearly all premodern cultures, the phrase "next world" meant something very specific in cosmology that had nothing to do with literal rebirth of an individual.

Vision is MindMind is EmptyEmptiness is Clear LightClear Light is UnionUnion is Great Bliss

I'll confess to being one of the two (so far) "Not Sure"s. I'm too new to Buddhism to know if the belief is necessary to self-proclaim as a Buddhist or not.

My rookie view is that Buddhism is a path. The Buddha walked the entire thing and mapped it out for the rest of us. That map is the Dhamma. There are others who are right now walking the same path. Some are farther along than others. This is the Sangha. What I do know is that the map is spot-on for the distance I've traveled thus far. Do this, go here, and you'll find "x" and lo and behold, there's "x" right where it's supposed to be. This gives me confidence in the map, but not complete faith.

In my current understanding of "everything", there is no way I can fathom for rebirth to be possible. Without rebirth, the effects of kamma upon me personally are restricted to this life. And, for the moment, that's all I need to keep walking the path. Anatta is starting to reveal itself and that's enough for me to deal with right now.

So, if someone were to ask me if I'm a Buddhist, my answer is 'I'm working on it.'

Regards: AdvaitaJ

Last edited by AdvaitaJ on Sat Mar 28, 2009 1:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

The birds have vanished down the sky. Now the last cloud drains away.We sit together, the mountain and me, until only the mountain remains. Li Bai

Peter wrote:The "don't know" taught by the Buddha is this: I don't know if the teachings are true or false. I do not know if they lead where they say they lead. I will put them into practice and see for myself if they are true, if they lead where they say they lead.

The specific teaching in question in this thread is: The way to the ending of suffering is the Noble Eightfold Path. Right View is part of the Noble Eightfold Path. Kamma and rebirth are part of Right View.

And so our "don't know" is: Is adopting the view of kamma and rebirth a part of the path to ending suffering? Is holding the view there is no kamma and rebirth an obstacle to ending suffering?

This is just another stating of a dualistic view [Kamma/rebirth = yes? kamma/rebirth = no? - "I don't know which to choose"] which is certainly an "I don't know", but it has nothing to do with the "I don't know" that I'm referring to...which is "maybe, neither, both, none...I don't know". Not rejection. Not acceptance. Nothing in between the two.

BTW, I have no problem with Kamma - it is evident in all aspects of phenomenal appearances and it is easy to see how it extends beyond the borders of this life and ripples throughout the lives of all beings past/present/future.

Vision is MindMind is EmptyEmptiness is Clear LightClear Light is UnionUnion is Great Bliss

clw_uk wrote:So couldnt it be said that one needs such view to begin, but to reach nibbana it needs to be let go of because its inherently tainted with sensual desire, being and ignorance which hold one back from nibbana?

In short: no. This view has already been addressed quite thoroughly in another thread.

pink_trike wrote:BTW, I have no problem with Kamma - it is evident in all aspects of phenomenal appearances and it is easy to see how it extends beyond the borders of this life and ripples throughout the lives of all beings past/present/future.

I'm not sure if the above accurately reflects the Buddhist teachings on kamma, but that's a topic for another thread.

peter wrote:There will be times when you will have to make decisions which will be influenced by what view you hold about what happens when we die.

Specifically?

A common example is euthanasia. In discussions on what is the right thing to do with a terminally ill and in pain relative it becomes very clear how one's view on rebirth affects one's decision making.

peter wrote:Some take it on faith that it is all the word of Jesu...er, the Buddha. "Buddha said it, its in the Canon, I believe it"...to paraphrase a popular xtian phrase.

Still missing the point.

I read the suttas, and see if practice confirms them. If practice confirms, then I have faith in what is confirmed.

If one does not adopt right view, can one be said to be practicing in accordance with the suttas? Does it make sense to call someone a Buddhist if they knowingly leave out large chunks of Buddhist teachings?

pink_trike wrote:BTW, I have no problem with Kamma - it is evident in all aspects of phenomenal appearances and it is easy to see how it extends beyond the borders of this life and ripples throughout the lives of all beings past/present/future.

I'm not sure if the above accurately reflects the Buddhist teachings on kamma,

but that's a topic for another thread.

I agree.

I agree.

Vision is MindMind is EmptyEmptiness is Clear LightClear Light is UnionUnion is Great Bliss

One is free to think and do whatever one wants, as long one is ready to accept whatever consequences there are.

However if one devotes oneself to a particular system to the point of identifying with it and 'joining the system' in order to get the results which one is convinced the system will lead to, then that changes things - at least from the perspective of the system being effective or not for you to get the promised results.

To be Buddhist, as has been pointed out above, means to have such complete confidence in the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha that one takes refuge in the Three Jewels. By taking refuge it doesn't imply hiding or simply being protected in a passive sense, it means that we take steps and measures in accordance with the Buddha's system outlined. The Buddha was most clear about cause and effect - whether related to karma or other forces. He was also pretty clear about the nature of mind as being something which has it's own dynamic, which in turn has a bearing on our happiness.

The fact that a Buddhist gets hung up about the "person/self" literally being reborn and not understanding it is merely a continuum of mind is more indicative of the lack of study, reflection and meditation than a case of not being able to prove something empirically.

As has been pointed out above, faith is an important ingredient, and again when the Buddha asks us to investigate his teachings it isn't about determining whether they were true or not but more about 'why' they are true - developing greater conviction, which in turn leads to better results.

If you don't believe in an ongoing mental continuum, if you don't have any conviction about cause and effect, that's ok - but this system is not for you. The whole structure of Buddhism is based on cause and effect (4NT, 8FP) and the ongoing mental continuum.

Meanwhile if one wants to continue investigate, what harm is there in that?

it isn't about determining whether they were true or not but more about 'why' they are true - developing greater conviction, which in turn leads to better results.

This is a religious perspective that is common to all religions.This same exact belief is central to evangelical, southern baptist, and catholic christianity, and Islam. It strikes me as infantilizing, and overly reliant on a "savior".

Vision is MindMind is EmptyEmptiness is Clear LightClear Light is UnionUnion is Great Bliss

it isn't about determining whether they were true or not but more about 'why' they are true - developing greater conviction, which in turn leads to better results.

This is a religious perspective that is common to all religions.This same exact belief is central to evangelical, southern baptist, and catholic christianity, and Islam. It strikes me as infantilizing, and overly reliant on a "savior".

Harshly stated, but I do not disagree.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

To me, it's quite simple. I hold that, if, after studying the Teachings, practising sila and meditation, and discussing with other buddhists, for a long time, - you find you have proven that much of what the Buddha teaches is true - but cannot produce irrefutable proof of kamma and rebirth - then simply set them aside and live "as if" they are true, as everything else you have tested has been found to be. This is what saddha is to me - confidence in the teachings of the Buddha because of what I have found to be true, and acceptance of things which he also teaches which are not provable at my present level of understanding.These links may be of interest: Dhamma Without Rebirth? by Bhikkhu BodhiIn line with the present-day stress on the need for religious teachings to be personally relevant and directly verifiable, in certain Dhamma circles the time-honored Buddhist doctrine of rebirth has come up for severe re-examination. Although only a few contemporary Buddhist thinkers still go so far as to suggest that this doctrine be scrapped as "unscientific," another opinion has been gaining ground to the effect that whether or not rebirth itself be a fact, the doctrine of rebirth has no essential bearings on the practice of Dhamma and thence no claim to an assured place in the Buddhist teachings. The Dhamma, it is said, is concerned solely with the here and now, with helping us to resolve our personal hangups through increased self-awareness and inner honesty. All the rest of Buddhism we can now let go as the religious trappings of an ancient culture utterly inappropriate for the Dhamma of our technological age. If we suspend our own predilections for the moment and instead go directly to our sources, we come upon the indisputable fact that the Buddha himself taught rebirth and taught it as a basic tenet of his teaching. Viewed in their totality, the Buddha's discourses show us that far from being a mere concession to the outlook prevalent in his time or an Asiatic cultural contrivance, the doctrine of rebirth has tremendous implications for the entire course of Dhamma practice, affecting both the aim with which the practice is taken up and the motivation with which it is followed through to completion. http://www.dharmaweb.org/index.php/Dham ... kkhu_Bodhi

and, if after investigation, study and practice you feel that kamma and rebirth are not true - then set Buddhism aside and find a path elsewhere.

---The trouble is that you think you have time------Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe------It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---

Craig - So couldnt it be said that one needs such view to begin, but to reach nibbana it needs to be let go of because its inherently tainted with sensual desire, being and ignorance which hold one back from nibbana?

Peter - In short: no. This view has already been addressed quite thoroughly in another thread.

It was but i wasnt completely satisfied with the answers

The Buddha states rebirth view is right view but it is tainted with ignorance, sensual desire and being (all things that will prevent one from reaching nibbana).

None of the Arahants had taints, so they had no view at all of rebirth

So why then would the Buddha state such a tainted view was right? My only answer is because it sets one on the path with right thinking, intentions and conduct etc, however eventualy Rebirth View needs to be gotten rid of, abdandoned and seen for what it is, a tainted view.

If a view is tainted with sensual desire, being and ignorance (i.e. rebirth view) then to hold to it will not clear one of the taints

I know the argument is that its the "person" who is tainted and not the view itself which is true but take for example an annihilationist, this view comes to be because of the individuals taints (his desire for sensuality, sense of being and ignorance), the same with rebirth view.

Saying one can remove the taints and still hold a view of rebirth is impossible, thats the same as saying that if an annihilationist removes taints he can still be an annihilationist, which is impossible since if that were to happen he wouldnt be an annihilationist

What im saying is that rebirth view is tainted with ignorance etc, when one removes the taints then there will be no rebirth view anymore

Therefore if one is to reach nibbana, all taints are to be removed, which then means removing rebirth view completely

So in conclusion, i see rebirth as needed to begin the path (so i would say one needs to accept it) and then through practice one removes all the taints which then removes rebirth view

Metta

Last edited by clw_uk on Sat Mar 28, 2009 2:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The dogmatists have claimed to have found the truth, others say that it cannot be apprehended; the Sceptics continue the search. Sextus Empiricus

This, to me, neatly encapsulates what it really means to practice Right View. It's not about blindly believing something, it's not about giving up choice or closing one's mind. It is about choosing to do something (adopt a view) because you have faith in the one who has advised you to do so.

...as everything else you have tested has been found to be.

And this is why one has that faith.

This is what saddha is to me - confidence in the teachings of the Buddha because of what I have found to be true, and acceptance of things which he also teaches which are not provable at my present level of understanding.

Rather than "acceptance", I would say "willingness to try".

One who is not willing to try the Buddha's teachings regarding Right View seems to me has not yet taken refuge in the Triple Gem. This is why "don't know" misses the point. Most of us here don't know whether rebirth is true. I'd wager most Buddhist past and present don't know either. Knowing is not the point. The point is willingness to adopt the view which the Buddha teaches is part of the path to liberation. If you don't know whether you are willing to adopt that view then you haven't adopted it.

it isn't about determining whether they were true or not but more about 'why' they are true - developing greater conviction, which in turn leads to better results.

This is a religious perspective that is common to all religions.This same exact belief is central to evangelical, southern baptist, and catholic christianity, and Islam. It strikes me as infantilizing, and overly reliant on a "savior".

Harshly stated, but I do not disagree.

I am not asking you both to agree with me, but conveniently sidestepping the lines between those of mine that you quoted is not exactly in the spirit of a non-evangelical, non-infantilizing clear thinking approach. It could almost be categorized as a cheap shot.

The question asked by the OP was whether accepting kamma and rebirth was necessary for Buddhists. I never stated in my post that everyone (i.e. non Buddhists) has to believe in this, that would be the evangelical approach, the infantilizing approach. You completely ignore the fact that I stated that people are free to believe what they want etc.

Plus you quote the line out of context, which is the fact that if one opts for a system then one works with the system the way it was designed. This is not necessarily infantilizing, nor is it relying on a savior. There is a clear assumption that one has done one's preliminary investigation (and eliminating selection) before becoming a buddhist.

I quote myself (please forgive me):

If you don't believe in an ongoing mental continuum, if you don't have any conviction about cause and effect, that's ok - but this system is not for you. The whole structure of Buddhism is based on cause and effect (4NT, 8FP) and the ongoing mental continuum.

Meanwhile if one wants to continue investigate, what harm is there in that?

if you don't want to accept kamma and rebirth, fine. explore Buddhism further to your hearts content before making any decisions about refuge. It is much healthier that way than to take refuge and then to be caught up in kleshic doubt.

Don't kid yourself, you can't have your cake and eat it too. In the case that you don't accept these two points at any level, you are still outside the system, and not engaged.